Verificar flujo de datos

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it's a 'vista filtrada' of another tool, and returns a structured JSON. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured into sections: purpose, args, returns, examples, and when-not-to-use. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers return format and provides examples. No output schema makes the return description necessary, and it is provided adequately. Minor improvement could include more edge cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a detailed description of the 'description' parameter. The main description reiterates the parameter's purpose but adds examples that illustrate usage. However, since schema already defines the parameter clearly, the description adds marginal semantic value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool evaluates a data flow description focusing on international transfers, legal basis, and DPIA. The title 'Verificar flujo de datos' and description distinguish it from siblings like 'gobernador_audit_text' (general audit) and 'gobernador_generate_compliance_report' (AI system compliance).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use context ('útiles queries rápidas de "¿puedo mover estos datos aquí?"') and when-not-to-use ('No usar cuando: se necesita clasificar riesgo de un sistema de IA completo'). Names the alternative tool 'gobernador_generate_compliance_report'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.